Advancing CBPR Practice Through a Collective Reflection and Measurement Toolkit Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) and Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) are key to NIH goals of reduced health disparities, diversified research workforce, increased minority enrollment in research, and enhanced external validity of research findings. Despite rapid CEnR growth and innovation, a shared measurement and evaluation science is still minimal. Multiple high-functioning research partnerships have solid evaluation designs, but most CEnR partnerships are in an emerging or intermediate stage, with little evaluation expertise to assess effective partnering processes. Without internal assessment and collective reflection, adoption of best practices for partnership quality improvement and for impacting health is limited. There is little to no national consensus on universal measures and tools linking CEnR partnering processes to potential intermediate system changes, community capacity, and research outcomes, nor to distal health outcomes. This application takes that next step: to refine and test evidence-based measures and tools of CEnR partnering processes and outcomes (proximal, intermediate, distal) with national CEnR partnerships. This grant builds from our recently-completed NIH study, Research for Improved Health (RIH), where we tested our CBPR Conceptual Model; developed new psychometrically validated quantitative process and outcome measures; and created a Toolkit of promising practices associated with outcomes from our data. We plan to refine measures and test effectiveness of our Collective Reflection and Measurement Toolkit, comprised of our CBPR Conceptual Model, Measures and other Tools, within an interactive guided Training Intervention to improve partnership success of research and capacity outcomes. Our specific aims include: Aim I: to reconvene our national Think Tank of academic and community CEnR/CBPR experts from the past seven years for expert consensus on measures; training intervention; and finalized CRM Toolkit; Aim 2: to refine and pilot-test reconfigured measures drawn from RIH case study analyses, ie, cultural-centeredness, trust, empowerment, reflexivity, community capacity/readiness, collaboration, implementation/adoption and dissemination/network measures; and Aim 3: to conduct a comparative effectiveness randomized control trial (RCT) with 40 partnerships, identified from NIH RePORTER database and CTSAs. Partnerships will be assigned to either 1) Training Intervention (two-day workshop of our CRM Toolkit with Internet-based assessment and personalized data analysis of measures of each partnership's processes and outcomes paired with motivational interviewing, followed by bi-monthly coaching (10 partnerships in four Trainings/each = 40 total); compared to 2) Minimal Web Intervention (providing access to CRM Toolkit resources and website in public domain). With increasing interest from CTSAs, NCI-designated Cancer Centers, ACA commitment to patient/stakeholder input, and from CBPR/CEnR researchers and practitioners, the lack of systematic partnered science is untenable. This study offers two critical outcomes to add to this science: validated and strengthened measures and tools; and effectiveness-testing of the CRM Toolkit to enhance partnership adoption of promising and best measures/practices for improved research and health outcomes.